(34.238.190.122) 您好!臺灣時間:2020/06/02 01:46
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
本論文永久網址: 
line
研究生:陳春成
研究生(外文):Chun-Cheng Chen
論文名稱:技術移轉過程中的專利侵權風險及損害賠償責任之研究-以美國專利法為中心
論文名稱(外文):Patent Infringement Risks in Technology Transfer and Resulting Damages Liability under the U.S. Patent Law
指導教授:周天周天引用關係
指導教授(外文):Jason Tien Chou
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄第一科技大學
系所名稱:科技法律研究所
學門:法律學門
學類:專業法律學類
論文出版年:2010
畢業學年度:98
語文別:中文
論文頁數:134
中文關鍵詞:潛水艇專利專利訴訟先前技藝非專屬授權專屬授權技術移轉智慧財產權專利權耗盡合理權利金
外文關鍵詞:Patent ExhaustionPatent LitigationSubmarine PatentNon-Exclusive LicensingExclusive LicensingPrior ArtTechnology TransferIntellectual PropertyReasonable RoyaltyGeorgia-Pacific Factors
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:867
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本論文所欲探討主題之發想,遠因乃民國83年曾負責自交通部電信研究所(目前已改制隸屬中華電信股份有限公司)技術移轉「摻鉺光纖光放大器」至當時所服務之公司;近因為台灣科技界近幾年見諸報端愈來愈多專利侵權爭訟,且主戰場均在美國。智慧財產權之受到國人重視,源自於美國使用貿易法中的301條款對於12項國外不公平貿易措施進行警告、報復,並以排除這些貿易障礙為其首要工作,其中之特別301條款更是主要為了保護美國的智慧財產權。
自西元2000年以來,台灣在美國獲得專利的數量排名一直在第三名或第四名間游移,但每年合計支付國外權利金約達1,500億台幣,以及因侵害專利而需支付的侵權損害賠償金與律師費約300億台幣,且有年年增加的趨勢。台灣非但沒有因專利的數量獲致可觀的專利利益,尚需支付因專利侵權所產生的損害賠償相關金錢損失。何以致之?除了台灣在美國獲得專利的質不佳,無人感興趣,進而起移轉或專利授權的動機外,企業對於專利授權或技術移轉的觀念及潛在風險向不重視。因此,觀念中只將專利授權契約或技術授權契約視同專利權人的技術使用同意書,殊不知隱藏在契約背後的風險,包含專利侵權及遇到情勢變更時如何主張艱困條款中權利金支付的有條件調整,均付之闕如,致生諸多訟源。
本文試圖探討技術授權契約訂定時需注意的風險,由最源頭的契約條款磋商即需引入風險管理,對於日後有可能引起雙方認知差異處及訂約時無法慮及之情勢變更,於契約載明並預作避險規劃,或可減少不必要的爭端,免於兵戎相見於法庭。
The subject to be explored in this thesis is inspired by cause of experiences in technology transferring about Erbium Doped Optical Fiber Amplifier from Telecommunication Laboratories of Ministry of Transportation and Communications (now belong to Chunghwa Telecom Co., Ltd.) to serviced company. Another cause is that more and more patent litigation between Taiwan and other countries (such as Japan, South Korea, U.S.A, etc.) occurred in U.S.A. The Intellectual Properties Rights (IPRs) have been paid much attention comes from the reason of U.S.A. use trade law 301 provisions to carry on the warning, revenging, and the retaliation regarding 12 overseas square deal measures, eliminate the trade barrier, especially the Specially 301 provisions is for the protection of Intellectual Properties Rights.
Since 2000, Taiwan takes the possession of 3rd or 4th in patent number list of USPTO. But equals the payment overseas option money approximately to reach 1,500 hundred million NT dollars every year, as well as right infringement harm indemnity which and legal expenses must pay because of the violation patent approximately 300 hundred million NT dollars and has the tendency which increases year after year. Taiwan not only does not have the patent quantity to obtain the considerable patent benefit, it must pay the damage compensate related money loss which, because the patent infringement produces. Why it is happened? The Nature of Taiwan obtains the patent except in the US is not to be good enough, nobody is interested, and then has the technology to transfer or outside the patent authorization motive, the enterprise does not take seriously regarding the patent authorization or the technical transferring idea has the potential risk. Therefore, in the idea only regards the patent authorization contract or the technical authorization contract with patent holder''s technical use letter of consent, have never realized the risk hides behind the contract, contains the patent infringement and meets when the circumstance change how to advocate in the hardship provision the option money to pay has the condition adjustment, sends lives many disputes the source.
The risk which this thesis attempts to discuss the technology transfer contract to schedule when must pay attention, namely must introduce the risk management by the most source''s contract clause consultation, regarding will have the possibility to cause in the future the bilateral cognition difference place and promises when is unable to worry about the circumstance, stipulates in the contract and does in advance takes refuge from danger the plan, or may reduce the nonessential conflict, will see avoid the disputes in the court.
第一章 緒論
第一節
研究動機·········································
1
第二節
研究目的·········································
3
第三節
研究範圍之界定···································
3
第四節
研究方法·········································
3
第二章 美國專利制度及其法律規範
美國專利制度之歷史沿革···························
第一節
6
第二節
美國專利制度之法律規範···························
10
第三節
美國專利權的種類及其法律效力·····················
17
第三章 技術移轉與專利侵權之風險
技術移轉的必要性·································
第一節
24
第二節
技術移轉的形式···································
27
第三節
技術移轉所產生專利侵權的風險·····················
30
第四節
專利授權的潛在風險·······························
38
第四章 美國聯邦法院對於專利侵權的認定標準
美國聯邦法院對於專利侵權的認定標準···············
第一節
49
第二節
美國聯邦法院對於專利侵權重要案例剖析·············
53
第三節
專家證人對於專利侵權認定的影響···················
74
第五章 專利侵權的民事損害賠償責任
第一節
損害賠償責任的範圍·······························
85
第二節
損害賠償金額的計算·······························
88
第三節
其他相關的損害賠償·······························
92
第一項
裁判前後所生利息························
92
第二項
訴訟過程產生費用························
92
第三項
懲罰性賠償的認定························
93
第四節
損害賠償金額的限制·······························
93
第六章 結論········································
105
參考文獻···········································
112
一、
中文部份
(一)專書
王承守、周延鵬、陳郁婷、鄧穎懋,跨國專利侵權訴訟之管理,第二版,2008。
王承守、鄧穎懋,美國專利訴訟-攻防策略應用,初版,2004。
周延鵬,智慧財產全球獲利聖經,第一版,2010。
周延鵬,一堂課2000億,第一版,2006。
陳瑞田、陳瑞琦,專利法規與實務,第一版,2008。
楊崇森,專利法理論與應用,第二版,2007年。
劉國讚,專利實務論,第一版,2009。
二、英文部分
(一)專書
Durham, Alan L., Patent Law Essentials, (Praeger; 2 edition, 2004)
Steven D. Anderman, John Kallaugher,Technology transfer and the new EU competition rules : intellectual property licensing after modernization, (Oxford University Press, USA , 2006)
Brian G. Brunsvold, Dennis P. O’Reilley, Drafting Patent License Agreements, (BNA Books (Bureau of National Affairs), 2008)
Duncan Curley,Intellectual property licences and technology transfer : a practical guide to the new European licencing regime, (Chandos Publishing (Oxford) Ltd , 2004)
Robert Harmon, Patents and the Federal Circuit, (BNA Books (Bureau of National Affairs), 9th edition, 2009)
Robert Goldscheider and Alan H. Gordon, Licensing best practices : strategic, territorial, and technology issues, (Wiley, 2006)
Joseph Glannon, Civil Procedure Examples & Explanations, (Aspen Publishers Inc,6th edition, 2008)
Philip J. McCabe, John W. Bateman, Kenyon & Kenyon LLP Donald Knox Duvall, Unfair Competition and the ITC (Actions Before the International Trade Commission Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930), (Clark Boardman Callaghan, 2009)
Kimberly A. Moore, Paul R. Michel, Timothy R. Holbrook , Patent litigation and strategy, (Thomson West; 3 edition, 2008)
Janice Mueller, Patent Law (ASPEN PUBLISHERS, 2009)
Daniel Slottje, Economic damages in intellectual property : a hands-on guide to litigation, (Wiley, 2006)
Guy Tritton ; Richard Davis ... [et al.], Intellectual property in Europ, (Sweet & Maxwell; 3rd edition ,2008)
(二)法院判決
Abbot Labs. v. Diamedix Corp., 47 F.3d 1128
ABC Industrial, Inc., Plaintiff, v. KASON Industries, Inc., and Kason Merchandising Fixtures, Inc., Defendants.,30 F.Supp.2d 331
A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020
Adams v. Burke, 84 U.S. 17 WL. 453 (1873)
ATLAS POWDER COMPANY, Plaintiff, and Hanex Products, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IRECO INCORPORATED and ICI Explosives USA,Inc., Defendants-Appellees.,190 F.3d 1342
Applera Corp. v. Mp Biomedicals, LLC 173 Cal.App.4th 769, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 178, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5308, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6324
Aptix Corp. v. Quickturn Design Sys., Inc., 269 F.3d 1369
Arachnid, Inc., v. Merit Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 1574,1578-79 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U.S. 336 (1961)(Aro I)
Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co., 440 U.S. 257, 201 USPQ 1 (1979)
Bauer & Cie v. O’Donnell, 229 U.S. 1(1913)
Bell International Corp. v. U.S., 381 F.2d 1004
Bement v. National Harrow Co, 186 U.S. 70, 91 (1902).
Bio-Rad Laboratories v.Nicolet Instrument Corp., 739 F.2d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1984); BIC Leisure Products,Inc. v. Windsurfing International, Inc., 1 F.3d 1214, 1218 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P. No. 06-1503, Federal Circuit
Botec Industries Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp., 215 F.3d 1246, 55 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964)
Burroughs Wellcome Co., v. BARR laboratories, inc., & Novopharm, Inc. and Novopharm, Ltd.,40 F.3d 1223
Calmar, Inc., Plaintiff, v. EMSON Research, Inc., Defendant.,850 F.Supp. 861
Cambridge Prods., Ltd. V. Penn Nutrients, Inc., 962 F.2d 1048
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 2007-1296, -1347 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2009)
Carey v. United States, 326 F.2d 975, 140 USPQ 345 (Ct.Cl.1964)
Conopco, Inc. v. May Department Stores Co., 46 F.3d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Mach. Works. 261 U.S. 2443(1923)
Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelecs Int’l Inc. 246 F.3d 1336
Cybor Corp. v. DAS Techs. 138 F.3d 654
Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., and Fastar Ltd., 138 F.3d 1448
Cytodyn, Inc., v. Amerimmune Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 160 Cal. App. 4th 288, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 600
Datascope Corp. v. SMEC, Inc., 879 F.2d 820, 825 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1024 (1990; Water Techs. Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 968 (1988).
Dawson Chem. Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176,184 (1980)
De Forest Radio Tel. Co. v. United States, 273 U. S. 236 (1927)
Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999)
Digital Corp. v. Browster Inc., 2008 WL 4104695 (D. Minn. Aug. 26, 2008)
Dwight & Lloyd Sintering Co. v. American Ore Reclamation Co., 44 F.Supp. 391 (D.C.N.Y. 1937)
eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange. L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006)
Enzo Apa & Son, Inc. v. Geapag A.G.., 134 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
ETHICON, Inc. and InBae Yoon, M.D., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES SURGICAL CORPORATION and Young Jae Choi, Defendants-Appellees.,135 F.3d 1456
Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436 ,446 ,457(1940)
Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Abbot Laboratories, 03-1067(Fed. Cir. 08/07/2003)
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002)
Finisar Corp v. DirectTV Group Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1339(Fed. Cir 2008)
Fiskars Oy Ab and Fiskars, Inc. v.Hunt Manufacturing Co., 279 F.3d.1378, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Fromson v. Western Litho Plate & Supply Co., 853 F.2d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
General Mills, Inc. v. Hunt-Wesson, Inc., 103 F.3d 978, 41 USPQ2d 1440 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp. 461 U.S. 648(1983)
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 446 F.2d 295 (2d Cir.1971)
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1(1966)
Haynes Int’l Inc., v. Jessop Steel Co., 8 F.3d 1573
Heidelberg Harris, Inc. v. Loebach, 145 F. 1454, 1458-1459, 46 USPQ2d (BNA) 1948 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
Henry v. A.B. Dick Co., 224 U.S. 1(1912)
Herbert v. Lisle Corp., 99 F.3d 1109, 40 USPQ2d (BNA) 1611 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Herbert MARKMAN and Positek, Inc., v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., 517 U.S. 370, 116 S. Ct. 1384
Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1469(Fed. Cir. 1990)
Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (2002)
Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Invamed, Inc., 213 F.3d 1359
Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. Indep. Ink, Inc. 547 U.S. 28 (2006)
Independent Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 269 U.S. 459
In Finisar Corp v. DirectTV Group Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1339(Fed. Cir 2008)
In re CFLC, Inc., 89 F.3d 673, 39 USPQ2d 1518 (9th Cir. 1996)
In re SCHREIBER,128 F.3d 1473
In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
In re Van Wanderham, 378 F.2d 981(C.C.P.A.1967)
Jamesbury Corp. v. Litton Industrial Products, Inc., 756 F.2d 1556
Jerry F. CONNELL, Gary F. Burns and Conelco, Inc.,Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., a Corporation, Appellee/ Cross-Appellant.,722 F.2d 1542
John H. Coleman, Appellant, v. Martin B. Dines, et al., Appellees,754 F.2d 353
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. 127 S.Ct. 1727
Lewis Eady v. Bryan K. Lansford. 351 Ark. 249, 92 S.W.3d 57
Lucent Techs. Inc. v. Gateway Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95934(S.D.Cal. Oct. 30, 2007)
Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
Malautea v. Suzuki Motro Co., Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536
Mantech Environmental Corp. v. Hudson Environmental Services, Inc., 152 F.3d 1368, 1376, 47 USPQ2d 1732, 1739 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1210, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1013 (Fed.Cir1998)
Matsishita Electric Industrial Co.,Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Zenith Radio Corp. et al.,106 S.Ct. 1348
McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d 1576, 27 USPQ2d 1129 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
Merck KgaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., 545 U.S. 193 (2005)
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech,Inc. 549 U.S. 118 (2007)
Met-Coil Systems Corp. v. Korners Unlimited, Inc., 803 F.2d 684, 231 USPQ 474 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., Civ. No. 00-792-SLR (U.S.D.C., D. Del., opinion and order filed Jan. 9, 2009).
Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. 550 U.S. 437 (2007)
Minco, Inc. v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., 95 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559 1578-79 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Motion Picture Patent Co., v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502, 518(1917)
NIKE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. and Hawe Yue, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.,138 F.3d 1437
Northbrook Digital Corp. v. Browster Inc., 2008 WL 4104695 (D. Minn. Aug. 26, 2008)
Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Brothers Fibre Works, 575 F.2d 1152, 1156, 197 USPQ 726, 730 (6th Cir. 1978).
Permanence Corp. v. Kennametal, Inc., 908 F.2d 98,15 USPQ2d 1550 (6th Cir. 1990)
Pfaff v. Wells Elecs. Inc., 525 U.S. 55 (1998)
Pivonka v. Central Garden& Pet Co., No. 02-cv-02394, 2008 WL 486049 (D. Colo. Feb. 19, 2008)
Plastics, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:04-CV1611 (M.D. Pa., Nov. 14, 2007)
Prima Teck II, LLC. V. A-Roo Co., 222 F.3d 1372
Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568(Fed. Cir. 1996)
Protor & Gamble Co. v. Paragon Trade Brands, Inc., 917 F. Supp. 305
Quanta Comp.,Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 128 S. Ct. 2109(2008)
Radio-Craft Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 7 F.2d 432 (3d Cir. 1925)
Reebok International Ltd. V. J. Baker, Inc., 32 F.3d 1552, 1558 (Fed. Cir.1994).
Rhino Associates, L.P., v. Berg Manufacturing And Sales Corporation and Cencor Plastics, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:04-CV1611 (M.D. Pa., Nov. 14, 2007)
Rhone-Poulenc Agro, S.A. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp., 284 F.3d 1323, 62 USPQ2d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538
Rock-Ola Mfg. Corp. v. Filben Mfg. Co., 168 F.2d 919, 78 USPQ 175 (8th Cir. 1948)
Rohm & Hass Co. v. Crystal Chem. Co. 736 F.2d 688
Ronald B. BROCKMEYER; Eromedia, Ltd., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. David C. MAY, Defendant, v. Marquis Publications, Ltd., Defendant-Appellant. ,383 F.3d 798
Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654
Samuel Gart v. Logiteck, Inc., 254 F.3d 1334
Sidney A. Diamond, v. James R. Diehr, II and Theodore A. Lutton, 450 U.S. 175,101 S. Ct. 1048
Slimfold Mfg. Co., Inc.v. Kinkead Industries, Inc., 932 F.2d 1453(Fed. Cir. 1991).
South Corp. v. U.S., 690 F.2d 1368
Southwall Technologies, Inc., v. Cadinal IG Company, 54.F.3d 1570
Standard Oil Co. v. United States , 283 U.S. 163 (1931)
Standard Sanitary Manufacturing v. United States, 226 U.S. 20 (1912)
SRI International, Inc., v. Advanced Technology Laboratories, Inc., and ATL Washington, Inc., 127 F.3d 1462
Teleflex & Technology Holding c. v. KSR Int’l co., 289 F. Supp. 2d 581(2003)
Textile Productions Inc. v. Mead Corp., 134 F.3d 1481, 45 USPQ2d 1633 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 717 F.2d 1380, 1390 (Fed. Cir 1983)
Union Paper-Bag Mach. Co. v. Murphy , 97 U.S. 120 (1877).
United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241(1942)
Vaupel Texilmaschinen KG v. Meccanica Euro Italia S.p.A., 944 F.2d 870 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576
Water Techs, Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660,668 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
Waterman v. Machenzie, 138 U.S. 252
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997)
Windsurfing International, Inc. v. AMF, Inc., 782 F.2d 995 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
WYETH, et al. v. JON W. DUDAS, 580 F. Supp 2d 138 (D.D.C. 2008)
Wyeth v. Kappos (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2010)
Yarway Corp. v. Eur-Control USA, Inc., 775 F.2d 268
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔